Suggestion

[EA]

This is not over one step versus three step.

This is not over ultra-cons versus liberals.

This is about atheists and agnostics versus Christianity.

As an added bonus, I would like to remind some of you that there is a proper way to conduct yourself while engaging in online conversation with a member of the opposite sex. Especially when you are married!

[Dedicated Mind]

I used to be upc, still am in doctrine but I don't attend church. So sue me for being a liberal.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

This is not over one step versus three step.

This is not over ultra-cons versus liberals.

This is about atheists and agnostics versus Christianity.

As an added bonus, I would like to remind some of you that there is a proper way to conduct yourself while engaging in online conversation with a member of the opposite sex. Especially when you are married!

Thank you again. I missed the last part I guess and O say but I am glad.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

I used to be upc, still am in doctrine but I don't attend church. So sue me for being a liberal.

This has NOTHING to do with being liberal or the UPC.

[TulsaDavid]

Though it could have something to do with being backslid.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by TulsaDavid

But of course. Minus, I suppose, the exodus.

Hmmm. The uncloistered and cloistered, eh?

How about the Egyptians and Hebrews. Or the faith non-contending and contending.

You have your analogy.

I think we must be talking past each other. I don't have a clue what you are saying.

[TulsaDavid]

Sorry ... I had a submerged moment.

Just using your analogy of cloistered monastics to venture with other possible analogies, was all.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

There is constant posting of the very opposite on here as you have defined. The Apostolics sure are quiet if they are on here?

True. Many of them are quiet. And maybe it's just my perception, but that silence seemed to coincide with the ramping up to and formation of the WPF. Is that my imagination? Was it coincidence?

I know at the WPF Youth Conference in Tulsa last year, the youth were instructed to stop talking about the formation of the WPF online, in forums, etc. It makes me wonder if the member ministers haven't been equally discouraged from online communications. (At least with those who might be liberal.)

I understand that the discussion can get tiresome if it's just going around in circles. I just don't understand the need to separate from someone just because they disagree with your views--IF that's the motivation.

Some days I don't like to have discussion, but on other days it helps me sharpen my own brain, and refine my own views, so I find it productive.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

I used to be upc, still am in doctrine but I don't attend church. So sue me for being a liberal.

Cannot have upci doctrine if you do not attend church, since apostolic doctrine involves church attendance.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

I do believe this place has changed.

The coversations are stale.

That, and the constant jabs at Christianity, authority, submission and Pentecostalism get very, very old.

AFF has turned into an instant messaging tool where people talk about silly, inconsequential, feminine things instead of the religious site it was intended to be.

The level of intelligent discourse has descended into the abyss.

All of this is not to say I don't enjoy a good laugh.

But when the entire premise of the forum is utter idiocy, and every substantial thread ends in either extramarital flirting and/or atheistic and/or agnostic posters tearing down Christianity as a whole, I think the original purpose of this forum is perverted.

I love the owners and admin here, but the site is failing.

That's why I rarely post.

And friends, I am nowhere close to an ultracon.

I do agree with you--and the loss is due, in large part, to the conservative voices that have left, and even some not-so-conservative voices. But they didn't leave because of frivolous conversations, did they? The forum always had the silly threads. It's just that there was more balance when everyone was posting their views.

Personally, I miss the "Posse", rrford, Carpenter, Newman, even Chancellor (on my really magnanimous days.)

There are plenty of Apostolics still on this forum, but the most vocal conservatives are MIA, and that did provide balance--and served to stimulate conversation.

Of course, there isn't anything at all wrong with silly, feminine, inconsequential discussions, especially those regarding shoes. BUT, I certainly don't come to the AFF for that.